Reply With Quote
So Biden is apologizing after letting the segregation thing hanging for like 2 weeks.
At this rate, he wont even make it till the end of the year. Gaffes followed by apologies right after the other.
What is your conspiracy theory here, Qhris?
So Biden is apologizing after letting the segregation thing hanging for like 2 weeks.
At this rate, he wont even make it till the end of the year. Gaffes followed by apologies right after the other.
C'mon man...
Now they'll surely vote for Trump!
Ickesian reptoid overlord. Is the top half of his face paralysed?
Bidwn sounded more robotic than sincere, IMO.
ahahaha looks like the old crypt keeper needs to take some more hair from his ass and plug it up on the back of his head; hey it worked for the front so why not?
poor old biden had to change his tune for his run to the presidency.
yep, exactly what huxley said would sell the people on a candidate no matter their policies or their nefarious ways. Ex; obama.
Poor fella can't openly fondle prepubescent girls anymore. What a shame.ahahaha looks like the old crypt keeper needs to take some more hair from his ass and plug it up on the back of his head; hey it worked for the front so why not?
This is not a Trump thread so not sure why you're bringing him into this tbh I mean if we were talking about Epstein Island or sneaking into backstages at teen beauty pageant dressing rooms maybe
tRuMp fAnS SeIzInG dAt MoRaL hIgH GrOuNd
oh, ok.
We know.
Why the House plans to pass a bipartisan bill repealing a controversial Obamacare tax
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/206976...e-cadillac-tax
Did Trump just save ObamaCare? Final HRA Rule is a rare bipartisan win for American workers
In 2014, regulators at the IRS got hung up on their interpretations of how an HRA should be treated under ObamaCare’s rules, and began threatening penalties of up to $36,500 a year per employee for businesses that offered HRAs to their workers in lieu of a small group plan – that’s 18 times the penalty for dropping coverage altogether.
At Take Command Health, we (Hooper) witnessed the carnage in the market first-hand. Small employers who were genuinely trying to help their employees pay for coverage were suddenly faced with penalties that were worse than if they did nothing. HRAs had become commonplace, but now were being removed by regulators in a dark room.
Last month, the Trump administration built on those efforts by issuing a final rule to further expand HRA plans – extending their availability to businesses of all sizes and ensuring that they can be used to purchase individual health coverage, within or outside of the ObamaCare markets.
Treasury Department estimates show that the rule, which creates the new Individual Coverage HRA and the Excepted Benefit HRA, could benefit more than 11 million workers and family members, including some 800,000 Americans who were previously uninsured. Take Command Health has estimated that these numbers could be even higher – closer to 50 million.
The irony? President Obama struggled to reach enrollment targets in the individual market and President Trump has been portrayed as seeking to undermine it. With this policy, however, HRAs will now allow employees to purchase coverage on the individual market – boosting enrollment and driving healthy market compe ion. In this, it supports a key goal of the ACA: protecting more Americans from going it alone in managing their health care costs.
For employees at a workplace offering HRAs, the administration’s rule means the opportunity to make coverage decisions based on their needs and their pocketbook, rather than based on the decision of their employer.
For the 80 percent of workers at firms offering health benefits that still provide an “option” of only one health plan, it means a welcome opportunity for change.
And for employers, this regulatory clarity expands options and lifts the threat of punishing fines simply for offering choices in health coverage to their workers.
What’s more, the administration’s rule includes important guardrails to prevent adverse selection and protect those with preexisting conditions.
Empowering employers and employees with policies that allow them to make their own coverage decisions is the first step in repairing our insurance markets. The diverse cross-section of workers and families that we reach through our combined efforts on a daily basis tells us this is precisely the shock to the system that the health care marketplace needs.
On behalf of the millions helped by this rule, we’re glad that Washington is starting to feel the same.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...rule-is-a-rare
And people say Trump isn't doing anything for healthcare. Of course, this rule gets NO publicity.
deckchairs
Actually, it doesn't solve anything. HRAs do nothing to control costs. Furthermore, in an insurace-driven market, HRAs only fragment the market more, creating more individual users that have much less leverage than a group. This is good news for insurance companies, and that's about it.
(Which doesn't mean the ACA is or was great, it suffered from the same flaws, but the hesitation about the HRAs had more to do with wanting larger groups with leverage than smaller individuals).
To Trump's credit, he did want to reform healthcare, but it was Congress that didn't make it happen.
Medicare for all would remove the perversion of companies "offering" health insurance at all.
But America can't Do The Right Thing, can't fix its , while the oligarchy/Repugs make everything tier.
"To Trump's credit, he did want to reform healthcare" Nothing he's cheap-talked about made healthcare better, "reformed" to be worse.
eg, he has made "junk plans" available again, where medical catastrophes dump the costs onto taxpayers' providers, while the insured get a cheap ride.
Maybe you missed the previous "threatening penalties of up to $36,500 a year per employee" that would just kill any employer's wish to try to provide healthcare to employees.
Do you think that healthcare is only about costs? There is that little thing called choice too - crazy how that word "choice" is so important to some in some cases but meaningless in others. It would put pre-tax dollars in the hands of the employee to make the choices best for employee and family (imo, the most efficient and COST-EFFECTIVE way of reducing healthcare costs see my example of DirectLab's CWP for $69 in December) - that choice/shopping around will hopefully cause costs to decrease because of compe ion.
Hospital prices, healthcare providers/insurers to provide out-of-pocket prices before receipt of services:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...re-transparent
Reduce drug prices:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...r-drug-prices/
Trump's attempt to allow small companies to band together got struck down by a court in March - this rule together with the above HRA rule would have moved the needle on getting many covered and reducing costs.
How Biden’s Secret 2002 Meetings Led to War in Iraq
In 2002, Biden was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Following 9/11, he conducted the “Hearings to Examine Threats, Responses and Regional Considerations Surrounding Iraq” on July 31 and August 1, 2002.
At the time, Biden classified the meeting as secret and did not allow public review or attendance.
Review of the entire transcript revealed there was no real evidence whatsoever that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or was in possession of WMDs.
Nothing in the transcript provided any evidence that Iraq was a threat. It was all historical and conjecture about the meaning of Saddam Hussein’s speeches.
In September 2002, Biden spoke before the Senate and made a case for war against Iraq. He followed that with a nearly one-hour Senate discourse supporting the war on October 9, 2002.
It was Biden’s inference in this Senate presentation that suggested Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat in mainstream discourse.
Biden conducted a secret meeting in which his star witness hadn’t been in Iraq for eight years. He concluded Iraq was a threat in spite of evidence to the contrary.
The mainstream media cooperated by not even reviewing the transcript of this meeting at the time.
https://truthout.org/articles/how-bidens-secret-2002-meetings-led-to-war-in-iraq/
He's all ya got, bouts. Go ahead & try someone other than him. You won't believe what'll happen even as it's happening.
I did read it. "threatening" is not actually issuing penalties, and AFAIK, nobody got penalized for that in the following 5 years, so the point is moot.
In the US specifically, healthcare is absolutely all about costs. When the actual prices are unchecked, that affects everything from premiums, coverage, access, etc no matter what "choice" you make on which insurance company is going to represent your interests.
The "choice" you're talking about has nothing to do with service providers or drug makers, and doesn't move the needle at all with actual healthcare costs. If a drug maker decides a drug dose is worth $1m, your insurance co is going to fight you tooth and nail not to cover, because it can't do to the maker.
And if they have to pay, premiums are going up, and that in turn reduces access (people that can actually afford the premium, and go without insurance). If they don't pay, they just de-factor reduced your coverage, and won't pay for the drug you need.
This is basically at the center of the problem of healthcare in America, and ACA didn't address it at all. We keep punting addressing the actual problem, and instead keep putting lipstick on a pig with HRAs and gimmicks that do nothing to actually address the main problem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions